Rather, the GOP is the party that is consistently supported by a modest majority of Whites in general while the Democratic Party's strength is in overwhelming support among non-Whites.

Even in this last election, which was conducted under very difficult circumstances for Republicans, the exit polling estimate is that McCain beat Obama by 55 - 43% among Whites. He beat him by an estimated 57-41% among White males and by an estimated 53-46% among White females. Exit polling data at Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com breaks voters into four age/race categories and McCain beat Obama by margins of at least an estimated 56-42% among every White age group except 18 - 29.

If you look at the way things break down in terms of electoral votes, exit polling clearly indicates that McCain won among Whites in 29 States accounting for 280 electoral votes (i.e., enough to win). Another four States, including Obama's home State of Illinois, were "statistical ties" in terms of how Whites voted. If you assume that whoever came out ahead in the estimates actually did receive the majority of votes among Whites, New Jersey and Maryland are in McCain's column and he won among Whites in 31 States accounting for 305 electoral votes.

So why did Obama win? Because, like any Democrat, he held an overwhelming edge among non-White voters. The exit polling estimate was 80 - 18%.

And, no, there's no evidence in exit pollling to suggest that the majority of Whites voted against Obama because of his race. Obama actually did better among Whites than Kerry did, as Bush beat Kerry by an estimated 58 - 41% among Whites. Also, if you study the exit polling results at the link I provided, you will see that most of the people who considered race of candidates important to how they voted selected Obama. It's more of a Party thing. Republicans have always beaten Democrats among Whites since at least as far back as 1976, and Democrats have won by overwhelming majorities among non-Whites every time since at least that far back as well.

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.

One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.

But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.

Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."

Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.

And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.

One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.

But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.

Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."

Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.

And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.

It all flip-flops.

Click to expand...

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Rather, the GOP is the party that is consistently supported by a modest majority of Whites in general while the Democratic Party's strength is in overwhelming support among non-Whites.

Even in this last election, which was conducted under very difficult circumstances for Republicans, the exit polling estimate is that McCain beat Obama by 55 - 43% among Whites. He beat him by an estimated 57-41% among White males and by an estimated 53-46% among White females. Exit polling data at Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com breaks voters into four age/race categories and McCain beat Obama by margins of at least an estimated 56-42% among every White age group except 18 - 29.

If you look at the way things break down in terms of electoral votes, exit polling clearly indicates that McCain won among Whites in 29 States accounting for 280 electoral votes (i.e., enough to win). Another four States, including Obama's home State of Illinois, were "statistical ties" in terms of how Whites voted. If you assume that whoever came out ahead in the estimates actually did receive the majority of votes among Whites, New Jersey and Maryland are in McCain's column and he won among Whites in 31 States accounting for 305 electoral votes.

So why did Obama win? Because, like any Democrat, he held an overwhelming edge among non-White voters. The exit polling estimate was 80 - 18%.

And, no, there's no evidence in exit pollling to suggest that the majority of Whites voted against Obama because of his race. Obama actually did better among Whites than Kerry did, as Bush beat Kerry by an estimated 58 - 41% among Whites. Also, if you study the exit polling results at the link I provided, you will see that most of the people who considered race of candidates important to how they voted selected Obama. It's more of a Party thing. Republicans have always beaten Democrats among Whites since at least as far back as 1976, and Democrats have won by overwhelming majorities among non-Whites every time since at least that far back as well.

Click to expand...

are you channeling William Joyce?

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

Why is it "bad" that Republicans depend upon modest majority support among Whites but "not bad" that Democrats depend upon ovewhelming majority support among non-Whites? Seriously, if Democratic Party support among non-Whites were at the level of support Republicans enjoy among Whites, the Democratic Party would be in trouble. If it was, McCain would probably be President right now. The point is that it's not only depending on having a majority of non whites, it's depending upon non-Whites being in Lock Step support of Democrats. Why is there no labeling of the Democratic Party as "The party of racial minorities?" Why is there no negative connotation to the Democratic Party never being able to win among Whites in national elections?

Are you suggesting white people's votes should count more than people of color? Why do you care if a Democrat wins more people with brown skin, more jews, more hispanics? Aren't they just as american as the white people who loved sarah palin and george bush? I don't understand what your beef is.

Click to expand...

And why should people care if "Old White Men" tend to vote Republican? The point is that the Republican Party gets criticized for having support among a certain demographic group while the Democratic Party does not. Again: If it's "bad" for Republicans to rely on support among White Males, who voted by an estiamted 57 - 41% for McCain in 2008, why is it not "bad" for Democrats to rely on overwhelming support among non-Whites, who voted by an estimated 80 - 18% for Obama, for remaining competetive on a national level?

I'll tell you something else, too. If you are White, you need to seriously consider the ramifications of the fact that the Democratic Party relies, not only upon majority support among non-Whites, but overwhelming majority support. You need to seriously consider the question of whether or not your interests are best served by a Party that has its bread buttered in that way.

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.

One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.

But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.

Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."

Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.

And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.

It all flip-flops.

Click to expand...

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Politics is perception. Whatever the "facts" may be, it is the perception in the south that democrats were responsible for passage of the civil rights act.

Fairmount is correct that it was the perception that democrats were reponsible for passage of the civil rights act that caused the south to go from a solid democratic region to a solid republican region.

you can cite facts till you are blue in the face, but, it will not overcome perception.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!